What happened in Nepal is horrific.
People died. Families lost everything. Entire communities were destroyed.
The world should absolutely help Nepal.
But “please help us” and “you caused this, therefore you owe us money” are two completely different statements.
And Nepal's government is now pushing the second one.
Their argument is basically:
Nepal emits almost nothing. China, India, America and other industrial countries emitted a lot. Climate change contributed to this disaster. Therefore those countries caused our disaster and owe us compensation.
That sounds emotionally satisfying.
It is also an enormous leap in logic.
First: PROVE CAUSATION.
Immediately after the disaster, the exact trigger was still being investigated.
Yes, climate change is warming the Himalayas. Yes, warming can destabilize glaciers, permafrost and mountain slopes.
But:
“Climate change increases the risk of events like this”
does not automatically mean:
“China and America caused this particular collapse on August 26 and therefore owe Nepal billions of dollars.”
That distinction matters.
Even the International Court of Justice recognizes that climate compensation requires a causal connection. You don't just point at a disaster, point at an emissions chart and declare someone guilty.
If you're using words like liability, then prove liability.
Tragedy isn't proof.
Second: Nepal is not some carbon-free civilization living outside the industrial economy.
Yes, Nepal's domestic emissions are extremely low. But a huge reason its electricity is so clean is geography. Nepal sits underneath the Himalayas and has enormous fast-flowing river systems ideally suited for hydroelectricity.
Great.
That's an incredible natural advantage. But let's stop pretending geography is moral virtue. Nepal didn't discover hydropower because it achieved some superior level of environmental enlightenment while the rest of humanity chose evil. Different countries inherited different resources. And Nepal still happily participates in the same global carbon-intensive economy it is now condemning.
Where do its phones come from? Computers? Cars? Machinery? Steel? Petroleum products? Appliances? Construction materials? Countless consumer goods?
63% of Nepal’s imports came from India and 19% from China.
So here's the convenient accounting trick:
A Chinese factory burns energy making something. The carbon goes on China's ledger. The product gets shipped to Nepal. The Nepali consumer gets the benefit. Then Nepal points at China's emissions total and says:
“Look how dirty you are. Look how innocent we are.”
Come on.
That's why consumption-based emissions exist. I'm NOT saying Nepal is equally responsible for climate change. Obviously it isn't.
I'm saying this childish division of humanity into perfectly innocent “victims” and evil “polluters” falls apart the second you examine how the global economy actually works.
Producers produce because people consume. Nepal participates in that system too.
And where does this logic end?
Every hurricane? Every flood? Every wildfire? Every drought? Every landslide?
A country checks its historical emissions, finds another country above it and sends them an invoice? That cannot possibly be the standard.
How much of Nepal's disaster came from anthropogenic warming? How much came from the inherent geological instability of the Himalayas? How much came from where infrastructure was built? How much could better monitoring and early-warning systems have prevented? Would this glacier eventually have collapsed in a world without human-caused warming?
Those questions actually matter.
Apparently asking them is less fashionable than screaming “CLIMATE JUSTICE.”
And this is what I find especially gross about the rhetoric.
China, India and other countries are helping Nepal. Rescuers are trying to save Nepali lives. The international community is sending assistance.
And the response increasingly becomes:
“Actually, this isn't charity. You owe us. You caused this.”
No.
Ask for help. Ask aggressively if necessary. Tell the world how devastating this disaster is. Ask wealthy nations to finance reconstruction, glacier monitoring, warning systems and climate adaptation.
I would support that.
But don't turn international solidarity into a courtroom verdict when the scientific investigation isn't even finished. Don't declare yourself the victim, declare someone else the perpetrator and then calculate the invoice.
That's not justice.
That's victimhood dressed up as a legal argument.
You want climate compensation?
Fine.
Show the causal chain.
Show exactly how much of this specific disaster was attributable to anthropogenic climate change. Show how much responsibility belongs to which country. Show what portion resulted from natural geological risk versus warming versus local vulnerability.
Then we can talk about liability.
Until then:
Help Nepal because people are suffering.
Do not pretend compassion requires accepting collective guilt.
A terrible natural disaster does not automatically create a criminal, a victim and a debt.
And “climate justice” should never become a magic phrase that allows governments to skip the evidence and go straight to:
You polluted. We suffered. Pay us.